In the world of investigative reporting we are often besieged with varying opinions and
stories. We are commonly at the mercy of those reporting to us and are expected to believe the story they are telling. We become ensnared
in the illusion that an authority figure might have superior knowledge than us and we often forgo our own knowledge in exchange for
that of someone who has a fancy sounding credential.
From the medical world to the scientific
community, investigative media reports, government officials and criminal justice professionals, we often hear these very frank words;
"There is no evidence." For instance, in the context of a police investigation it is often heard that there is no evidence if a celebrity,
sports figure or high ranking official is accused of a crime. These four powerful words are proclaimed that seem to quiet the critics
when authority figures wish to protect someone. When a crime is suspected of having been committed by a star athlete who brings national
glory to a university or town, the words "There is no evidence" will be issued to calm the lynch mobs.
We often hear these same words in the scientific and medical communities in regards to vaccines and their link to autism. High ranking
government officials and legions of medical doctors with walls full of credentials will stand at a podium and declare that there is
absolutely no evidence linking vaccines to autism. The mainstream media, (supported financially by the advertising of the pharmaceutical
corporations who make the vaccines), will also loudly express that their investigations have revealed that there is no evidence of
the link between vaccines and autism. Hence, most people have their opinions swayed and are quieted. We are expected to believe that
the words, "There is no evidence" means that the men and women in authority have conducted a thorough investigation to come to their
conclusions.
Ask any mother or father who have an autistic child and you are sure to get
a different story. Most parents of an autistic child will tell you that one day their child was completely healthy. They took the
child in for their MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and the very next day the child did not look normal. These parents will
often question their own sanity because the medical authorities have already indicated that there is no evidence linking vaccines
with autism.
We see this same smokescreen of verbiage used by government officials when
questioned about the existence of alien life forms on our planet. Despite many UFO sightings by ordinary citizens, commercial pilots
and military personnel, the government will continue to tell the public that there is no evidence that aliens have ever visited the
earth.
In the marijuana kingdom, those who are involved in using or selling the product
will most likely inform you that there is no evidence that marijuana is harmful or leads one to taking other stronger drugs. Despite
many formal scientific studies indicating the dangers of marijuana use to the body or the strong correlation between someone who first
begins using marijuana and then goes on to use stronger drugs, these individuals will cite the words, "There is no evidence" that
marijuana causes any harm and they will concoct their own story.
In many realms of life
this strategy of putting blinders on to confuse the public seems to be working. We just seem to accept these four words as truth and
go on with our lives. It is as if when we hear the words "There is no evidence" we just stop in our tracks, drop any notion we had
that things where different and then blindly accept the position of the authority figure.
What is "evidence" anyways? Evidence is a way to tell a story. Evidence can be based on a personal account or a second-hand story.
Someone might quote a published work or a scientific study, no matter if the published work were ever true or the scientific study
ever was accurate. Evidence can be personal and anecdotal or professionally induced by people with scores of credentials. "Evidence"
seems to have some pseudo-spiritual quality to it as if it were locked up in "Pandora's Box" and only the chosen few were allowed
to gather it and view it. Evidence carries with it some holy quality, even though drug tests can be masked and DNA evidence can be
tarnished.
Here is how the game is played. If you took a large bright-yellow school bus
and parked it in front of someone in a position of authority and asked them to open their eyes to tell you what they saw you might
be shocked at what you hear. The authority person might turn around as not to see the bus. He might turn sideways or look upward and
beyond the bus. He will do anything he can to not see the bus. He will boldly claim that he can see no evidence of a school bus in
front of him.
The same holds true in our world. You can dump mountains of evidence
on the desk of the CDC vaccine division (Center for Disease Control) and they will not see a link between vaccines and autism. You
can show government officials picture after picture of foreign and unexplainable objects in the sky and they will still tell you that
aliens have never been to this planet. You can present mounds of evidence about how a government official, president, king, ruler,
celebrity or sports figure did wrong and if the governing powers who want that person protected have their way, you will hear the
words, "After a thorough investigation we have found no evidence linking this person to the accused actions. Case dismissed.'"
You often hear the terms "credible evidence" "corrupted evidence" or "scientific evidence." These are often just more smokescreens
to quiet the crowd. What we all need to realize is that while much of the time truth and accuracy prevail, in many cases thorough
investigations are not being undertaken. Institutions and governing bodies have already made up their minds about how things are.
You cannot find something that you are not looking for. In this case, medical institutions are not looking for the link between autism
and vaccines so they are sure not to find it. Police officers often are not looking for evidence linking their super star athlete
to a crime so they are sure not to find it. Genetically modified food corporations are not looking for long-term health damage from
their products. This same strategy is often played out in the political arena. The common chant might be "Let's be open minded as
long as I can have it my way."
We are all telling stories, whether it is a religion, government,
medicine, corporation or a political group. Sometimes those stories are accurate; often they are not. At times if a group does not
like a competing story then it uses strategies like "There is no evidence" to silence the competition. "Red flags" should be popping
up all over whenever you hear those fateful words. The questions one should be asking are:

-What is your evidence?
-Who gathered this
evidence?
-Who could possibly benefit from the evidence gathered?
-Why won't you look at other competing stories?
-Who is in charge
of gathering evidence and where are their loyalties and why are they not being investigated?

Imagine a society where ideas are openly discussed (not debated) without personal agendas, corruption, scandal, profiteering, lies
or fraud. Far too often the words "There is no evidence" do not mean that there is no evidence. More commonly, giant bright-yellow
school buses of information are being ignored because that is not the story that a group wants you to hear.
People do not always want the truth; often they want what is popular. Most people don't always believe the right sources or the right
people; they put their faith in those who are the loudest or the most marketed. When do we start to investigate the investigators
themselves? Anybody can make up a story. Unfortunately many of the stories we are being told are just thatómade up.